G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J. ( 1 ) THE Indian horticultural research institute has its units at chittahalli and gonikoppal in kodagu district. They are called research stations, but, there are fruit growing trees therein, which according to the said institution, are for the purpose of research. The said two units are the writ petitioners herein. By the orders at annexures-b and c impugned herein, not only that the respondent sought to cover the said two units at chittahalli and gonikoppal under the Provisions of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('act' for short), but, also to direct making contribution of specific sum as specified in the said two annexures. ( 2 ) THE contention of the respondent is that, though the institution as such, viz. , Indian institute of horticultural research, came to be covered under the act by virtue of notification issued under Section l (3) (b) of the act with effect from 6-3-1982 as per item 48 of appendix-i to the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952 ('scheme' for short), the places at which fruit bearing trees were being grown by the institute concerned at chittahalli and gonikoppal, though for research purpose, the purpose not being relevant for the Provisions of the Act, were however 'fruits orchards' within the meaning of entry 36 of the said appendix-i to the scheme which came to be entered with effect from 31-12-1974, and that, therefore, the said two stations chittahalli and gonikoppal, had to be necessarily covered with effect from 31-12-1974. ( 3 ) THE petitioners, however, urged that the institution as suchis covered from 6-3-1982 and that, what are being there at chittahalli and gonikoppal are research stations and not fruit orchards within the meaning of the notification mentioned at entry 36 of appendix-i of the scheme. The further contention of the petitioners is that the respondent has sought to cover the casual employees also, which is not correct. ( 4 ) THE petitioners, thus, urged that the coverage in respect of the two stations with effect from 31-12-1974, the coverage of casual employees, and the determination of a consolidated sum as being without reference to the details of the employees, the eligibility of the said employees and the dates from which each of the said employee is to be covered, being absent in annexures-b and c, the same need to be quashed. ( 5 ) FIRSTLY, with regard to the nature of the establishments at chittahalli and gonikoppal. They are no doubt research stations of the Indian institute of horticultural research. But, what the said research centre maintains there are fruit growing trees as also other trees, though for the research purpose. The act speaks of an establishment, and not the purpose for which the establishment is being run. The reference is to the number of employees working in such establishment where it is an establishment covered by a notification of the central government under Section l (3) (b) of the act. By a notification dated 27-11-1974, under Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act, fruit orchards were brought within the purview of the act with effect from 31-12-1974. Section l (3) (b) of the act inter alia provides that act would apply to any establishment employing 20 or more persons as specified by the central government in a notification issued in that regard. By the notification dated 27-11-1974, the two establishments at chittahalli and gonikoppal would get covered with effect from 31-12-1974 if they could be called 'fruit orchards' and if 20 or more persons are employed therein. What is 'fruit orchard' is not defined in the act or in the scheme. According to the chambers dictionary, 'orchard' means an enclosed garden of fruit trees. What the institution maintains at chittahalli and gonikoppal are not open to public. They are obviously enclosed areas wherein fruit growing trees are grown and maintained. There could be no doubt, therefore, that they are fruit orchards. If they are fruit orchards, they are covered by the notification dated 22-11-1974 with effect from 31-12-1974. They are thus establishments within the meaning of Section 1 (3) (b) of the act to which the act would apply, subject however to the condition that the number of employees working therein are 20 or more. The respondent has taken into consideration the casual employees working therein. Sri s. v. shastry, learned counsel for the petitioners, urges that such casual employees cannot be taken into consideration in , determining the number of the employees. Sri harikrishna s. Holla, learned counsel for the respondent, refers to the criteria in this regard, as laid down by a division bench of this court in jyothi home industries (registered partnership firm), Mysore and others v Regional Provident fund commissioner in karnataka, Bangalore and others. Sri harikrishna s. Holla, learned counsel for the respondent, refers to the criteria in this regard, as laid down by a division bench of this court in jyothi home industries (registered partnership firm), Mysore and others v Regional Provident fund commissioner in karnataka, Bangalore and others. The division bench held that paragraph 26 (l) (a) of the scheme, read with sections 1 (3) and 2 (0 of the Act, would cover only such of the persons who have been employed in or in connection with the work of the establishment in the regular course of business of the establishment or the factory as the case may be, and it would not include employment of persons for a short period on account of some passing necessity or for some temporary need or emergency. The nomenclature given to an employee is thus not material. The decision has to rest on facts of each case. The respondent has, considering the nature of work of each of the employees in the two units, to determine that their employment, though in connection with the work of the establishment, if it is in the regular course of business and not for a short period on account of passing necessity or for some temporary need or emergency, then, they should still be taken as employees for the purpose of determining whether 20 or more persons are employed to bring it within the purview of Section 1 (3) (b) of the act and the notification issued thereunder. Since to determine this fact, separate direction is eventually being issued, all that needs to be stated at this stage is that the units at chittahalli and gonikoppal being fruit orchards, are to be covered with effect from 31-12-1974, if the number of employees working in each of the said units is 20 or more. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri s. v. shastry,urged that the main institution which is running these two research stations itself having been brought within the purview of the act with effect from 6-3-1982, the parts of the activities of the said institution cannot be said to have been covered with effect from an anterior date. A similar argument advanced, both in respect of a printing press run by andhra university and an agricultural farm run by vishwabharathi, were negatived by the Supreme Court. A similar argument advanced, both in respect of a printing press run by andhra university and an agricultural farm run by vishwabharathi, were negatived by the Supreme Court. That is in andhra University, Waltair v Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh and others and Osmania University v Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another. Departments of publications and press, wherein printing presses were being run by the two universities, were sought to be covered under the act. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the entire university must be treated as an establishment, and if the university cannot be said to be a factory engaged in an industry, there cannot be any question of coverage under the act and the scheme in so far as printing press sections are concerned. Negativing this contention, the Supreme Court observed that, in construing the Provisions of the Act, it is to be borne in mind that it is a beneficent piece of social welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the wellbeing of the employees, and the court will not adopt a narrow interpretation which will have the effect of defeating the very object and purposes of the act. Once it was found that there was an establishment which is a 'factory' engaged in an 'industry' specified in schedule I and employing 20 or more persons, the Supreme Court said that the Provisions of the act will get attracted to the case and it makes no difference to the above said legal position that the establishment is run by a larger organization which may be carrying on other additional activities falling outside the act. The decision of the learned single judge of the Calcutta high court in Vishwa Bharathi v Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court wherein the learned single judge has held that the Provisions of the act were inapplicable in respect of an agricultural farm and a hospital run by the vishwa bharathi university, the learned single judge being of the view that, if the university as a whole as an establishment did not come under the purview of the Act, the different branches or departments of the university which the university is empowered and/or entitled to maintain under the Provisions of the visva bharati Act, cannot be brought within the mischief of the act. The Supreme Court said that it had no hesitation to hold that the said view expressed by the learned single judge of the Calcutta high court was not correct or sound, and that the said decision did not lay down correct law. ( 7 ) IN the light of the ratio of the above said Supreme Courtdecision, the arguments put forth on behalf of the writ petitioners viz. , that the horticultural research institution as a whole came to be covered only with effect from 6-3-1982 and that any activity of its branches anterior to that date cannot be independently considered, does not need to be appreciated. The further argument on behalf of the writ petitioners that it is not merely the growing of fruit trees, but, that the research institution has much wider activities in the matter of horticultural research also does not stand scrutiny if the two fruit growing enclaves by themselves may be called establishments brought within the purview of the notification under Section l (3) (b) of the act dated 27-11-1994, and as such, if 20 or more employees are working there, satisfying the criteria laid down by a division bench of this court in jyothi home industry's case referred to above, then, their coverage under the act would be appropriate and legal. ( 8 ) THUS, declaring that the two units at chittahalli and gonikoppal are coverable with effect from 31-12-1974, it is necessary to notice that the impugned orders, though quantifying the amounts, are neither shown to have taken into consideration the criteria laid down by the division bench in jyothi home industry's case, nor the date of eligibility of each one of them. These are the questions of fact to be decided by the respondent on holding an enquiry. In such an enquiry, not merely the employer, but, also the employee shall have to be heard because, the question as to whether a particular employee needs to be covered or not in the light of the criteria laid down in the jyothi home industry's case would obviously affect an employee if he is wrongly left out. In such an enquiry, not merely the employer, but, also the employee shall have to be heard because, the question as to whether a particular employee needs to be covered or not in the light of the criteria laid down in the jyothi home industry's case would obviously affect an employee if he is wrongly left out. Paragraph 26-b of the scheme may be referred to in this context wherein, resolution of a doubt with regard to a particular employee being entitled to become a member or as regards the date from which he is entitled to become a member, needs to be done thereunder. The portions of annexures-b and c, therefore, in so far as they quantify the amounts, cannot be sustained, and further enquiry must be said to be absolutely necessary in that regard. ( 9 ) PETITIONS are partly allowed. Annexures-b and c, in so far as they quantify the amounts, are quashed. It is declared that the writ petitioners are coverable with effect from 31-12-1974 under the notification dated 27-11-1974 issued under Section 1 (3) (b) of the act. The respondent is directed to hold an enquiry with notice to the employer and employees, firstly to determine as to whether 20 or more employees are working, applying the criteria laid down in the jyothi home industry's case and then to determine as to which among the said employees are entitled to become members, and the date of eligibility of each one of them. On such determination, the respondent is directed to arrive at the resultant amounts. --- *** --- .